This site is expensive to run! Any time you shop for anything at these stores (but especially camera equipment), we get a few cents from every dollar if you visit the site using our links. We promise we'll use the money to get more camera gear for testing

This site is expensive to run! Any time you shop for anything at these stores (but especially camera equipment), we get a few cents from every dollar if you visit the site using our links. We promise we'll use the money to get more camera gear for testing

It is a beautiful image Kerry. I love the mist. The light on the water in the foreground and the clouds behind gives it depth. I see the difference between the two images and if I had to choose would use 1, the sharper one, but not by much.

I am going for No1 though can not tell the difference switching between them in the expanded view (!) Only in the smaller versions does No1 seem to present the detail in the rocks slightly clearer for ME, but then given the obvious limitations of my eyesight and monitor (?)...It is a super scene and so well captured too.

Sharpened for WEB..? There is so much adjustment available where to start and where to stop... down to artistic interpretation...?

It seems that sharpening may be AUTOMATICALLY applied to images by some PP processes, prior to manual operation of the sliders..?

It is a beautiful image Kerry. I love the mist. The light on the water in the foreground and the clouds behind gives it depth. I see the difference between the two images and if I had to choose would use 1, the sharper one, but not by much.

Rod. thanks for trying to sort me out.... My problem is that such is my nature I require DATUM from which to measure ANYTHING... and it seems that in photography there are so many variables, and ultimately it may all be down to PERSONAL artistic interpretation....?

Of course if one finds enough folk/fellow artists to agree with your interpretation, then your efforts may be applauded/recognised as worthwhile... And given a pile of bricks, an unmade bed and other works of "art" have received the highest accolade from recognised "lovers of art," it would seem that I am definitely lacking any artistic chromosomes in the makeup of my DNA.... But. I will keep trying..(-:

That's a really pretty scene, Kerry! Did you take this in the middle of the day (based on the blue sky)?

I can see more detail in the shadows in #1, so that also is my favorite. The mist is beautiful. Looks like you got down there really close to water level!

Hey Mark. The shot was taken about an hour after sunrise. It took that long for the mist to begin burning off. You can see that the sun is still at a pretty low angle by how the light gets picked up in the trees. I paddled to this spot with my wife well before sunrise and got pretty much lost in the fog, which was incredibly dense. I set up in the fog and took some pix before the mist burned off, which are pretty nice in their own way. But fortunately I waited around for the sun to break through. And yes, I was practically in the water. I had my tripod as low as it could go with the legs completely splayed out and doing everything I could to keep the spray off the lens.

I am going for No1 though can not tell the difference switching between them in the expanded view (!) Only in the smaller versions does No1 seem to present the detail in the rocks slightly clearer for ME, but then given the obvious limitations of my eyesight and monitor (?)...It is a super scene and so well captured too.

Sharpened for WEB..? There is so much adjustment available where to start and where to stop... down to artistic interpretation...?

It seems that sharpening may be AUTOMATICALLY applied to images by some PP processes, prior to manual operation of the sliders..?

Sharpening for the web is not something I actually have to do so much as decide to do. When I export from Lightroom the program gives me that option but also when I use the TK luminosity mask program within Photoshop there is an option for sharpening for the web as well. They both seem to work pretty much the same ( I just have to be sure I don't accidentally use both.) Sharpening for the web can look overdone on my monitor prior to export but it balances out because in exporting to the to the web there is compression, which naturally reduces image detail. So I wanted to check out the difference.

Yup, number 1 works for me, fabulous image

Thanks, much appreciated.

beautiful!

First one for me, by a gnat's hair.

From the foreground rock to the clouds in the sky - lovely !

Thanks Rod. Looks like we all agree that the sharpened image works best, which is how it's supposed to be after all.

This is a bit embarrassing. This photograph, shot last summer, was my first experience in the field using ND filters. I was so involved with the filters and trying to figure out what shutter speed looked best that I forgot to set my ISO at 100 and mistakenly left it on automatic. So when I put in a filter, instead of the shutter speed slowing down the ISO kept going up until it reached the max and only then did the shutter speed get slower. So this was shot at ISO 6400. That's crazy, of course, and initially when I downloaded my photos and realized what I'd done I figured the picture was a loss and didn't look at it again. But last week I came back to it and took a closer look and even at 200% the only place that the noise was a real problem was on the water in the foreground, particularly that dark area where the water is falling. I was super impressed that my little Fuji could do so well at such a high ISO. So I figured this was an opportunity to see what I could do with Topaz 6 Denoise. Again, I was pleasantly surprised what a good job it did. It is a very good program - much better, in my opinion, than the denoise function in Lr. That being said, I don't plan to make that mistake again So the settings: ISO 6400, 14mm, f/16, ⅓ sec. I can't remember which filter I used to take this particular shot, probably a 6 stop but it's kind of irrelevant because If my ISO had been set properly I would likely have used a 3 stop under those lighting conditions. What I've found is that for fast moving water, like rapids, I don't want a super long shutter speed - somewhere around ⅓ - ½ sec seems to be about right to capture the motion without turning everything into featureless foam. For water falls where there is a real drop long shutter speeds can be very effective but I haven't had a chance to shoot a real falls yet.

Therre was a series on teevee by Mathew Collings, "This Is Modern Art" that's available on youtube. Its worth a look. Six episodes. I personally think he's great. he made other, similar films about the Impressionists, Classical art, art history etc.

Worth flashing up the youtubes in the evening when, as John Logie Baird said after he invented the television and switched it on for the first time,

Thanks for the heads up Rod, though seems to me that you either got it or you ain`t in the case of art... I am blessed in other ways..... ROFL.

Also picked up the info on Elements 15...Thanks, though I have not even discovered/ used much of that which is available in ver 10 ..!!! I did get an update to work with RAW from Adobe and I have the Nikon PP software provided with the D800 when purchased.. It ain`t the software that is holding me back....!